Case 2303132/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303132/2023
- Decision date
- 28 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the public preliminary hearing in London South on 28 June 2024, before Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer, the claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Ms M Sharp. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's harassment related to disability complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal, and it refused the claimant's application to amend the claim.
The tribunal then held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the remaining claim. It found that the claim had been presented outside the primary time limit, that there was no possibility of a course of discriminatory conduct, and that it was not just and equitable to hear the claim outside the primary time limit. No complaints brought under the claim number survived the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal recorded that the harassment related to disability complaint was dismissed upon its withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend the claim and held that the remaining claim was presented outside the primary time limit, there was no possibility of a course of discriminatory conduct, and it was not just and equitable to hear the claim out of time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- primary time limit
- course of discriminatory conduct
- just and equitable
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.